|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Both of which are submissive gestures, not that unusual in a doge approaching an unfamiliar human and wanting to show that they're not a threat. Its pretty likely that the dog just wants to say hello.
Not that you can't get bit by a dog with any body language, but Its ears up tail up and wagging like a metronome= I think i can take you BRING IT PUNK
The character was an inquisitor and WAS built to do a large number of tasks. But the dc 20ish skill checks meant that rounds 1, 2, 1nd 3 rolls of.. well, 1 2 and 3 on the die meant that I was't going to get anywhere before the chase scene ended one way or the other.
The recent chase scenes in this one and the merchants wake have been a lot more popular because
-They're a group effort, the entire party moves together rather than playing an individual board game
-A lot more "roll the die now figure out what you're doing later" since you don't have to figure out who's rolling what in advance to avoid gaming the sysem.
-You're participating from start to finish. I remember in rise of the goblin guild I missed the first two rolls... and it was pretty clear I'd never get back in it, so i went for coffee.
A shatterproof backboard is the real key to that.
I believe he's saying that the free market solutions to bigotry don't work, and are evidenced not to work, so the libertarian hypothesis that the free market will take care of it is bunk, because evidence > ideals.
That wasn't the question. I asked if you memorized it and understood it in relation to every other rule that might apply to it ? Big difference between that and reading it a few times. Those rules get a little crazy and counter intuitive. You should see the looks on DMs faces when I tell them that a druid in rat form can breathe underwater.
I also print out the pages on anything I'm using and take it with me to the game. If the GM can do enough homework to put an entire game together, I can be bothered to learn how to play a character.
And that's ALL that's required to end rules lawyering?
The vast majority of rules lawyering isn't not knowing the rules, or even bouncing weird ruless off of each other, its looking at the same words and coming to alternative meanings of the exact same words. (quite often, whichever reading gives the player the advantage). Knowing, citing, or printing out the rules isn't going to help you there.
hare Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).
Reading that as one big related clause or as two separate clauses are both fairly common.
Do you memorize everything you read, and understand the often contradictory and bizarrely placed and cross referenced rules and how they interact with each other? Something as straitforward as the druid requires having the druid page , the monster they're turning into, and the beast shape spell, as well as the polymorph section of the magic chapter all pinging off of each other.
Roo 666 wrote:
So... I start my Goblin Boone and choose Goblin Marauder. The minimum weight of a naked goblin is 32 lb. The bat can only carry a 30lb load before it gets in the medium load category. It now cannot fly. Who's the genius that wrote this one?
The minimum weight is 27 pounds. You don't HAVE to be male... :)
But besides that, yeah. Wand of ant haul (you can hand them to party members if you can't cast it yourself)
Never trust anyone or anything that doesn't trust dogs.
This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.
He's not picking up on half the reason WHY people say the rogue is weak.
Its not JUST his lack of ability in combat, its also his lack of ability in skills and versatility. The idea that the rogue trades combat effectiveness for skill supremacy and versatility and thats ok doesn't pan out, not because its nots ok but because it simply isn't true.
Combat effectiveness are traded out for Rogue talents are that are objectively horrible and extra skill points that can diversify your skill set but do little if anything to improve a wide range of skills that the rogue will, at best, be mediocre with.
There is somewhere between little an no reason why the same party member needs to climb the cliff, pick the lock, swim under the water, put a knife to the cooks throat and tell them to be silent, sneak past the kennels, lie to the guard about the shift change and talk to the princess about the value of her royal jewelry.
When other classes, particularly spellcasters, trade power for versatility they loose a little power and gain a lot of versatility. The rogue loses a lot for very little.
Kitsune are great for
Dervish dancer bards (which are better swashbuckler types than swashbucklers)
Dex based paladins (mixes oddly well with the swashbuckler)
Charming/Dashing rogue types.
There's a really fun Mouser Swashbuckler urban barbarian mix i want to try: basically you turn into a tiny fox, move into peoples space and annnoy them from there.
As mentioned, the enchanter thanks to their racial bonus.
Either that or they got a lot of Sheilda Hedemarch adventures...
Rogues exceed at skills and utility. Finding traps, disabling traps (traps that can instant-kill you, by the way, not all traps 'just drain charges from a wand of Cure light wounds.') Rogues are fast-talkers, are good at stealth. With proper buffs from a wizard or clerics, Rogues can end an encounter without ever getting into combat. Are they the best class in the game? No. Are they super broken? No. Could they be made better? Yes. Are they viable? Also yes.
This is the false part. This is why their lackluster performance in combat lacks excuse. They do NOT exceed at skills and utility. Anyone can find traps. Their only advantage is the 8 skill points per level, which merely lets them succeed at their 7th and 8th worst choices for skills.
Pathfinder society Dancing lights Semaphore.
Make a dancing lights triangle: One light in the center
The bigger the triangle the faster the scout is moving. One big ball means stop.
Triangle tilts right, they're going right. Left, left etc.
Triangle spins clockwise= get up here. Faster it spins, the more urgent it is.
Triangle spins counter clockwise= Run away. Faster it spins the more urgent it is.
Threat level: three balls in a vertical line. The fourth ball marks a point on an XY axis. X denotes the certainty of violence, Y denotes the level of the threat.
The duration on dancing lights, which i missed, is a real limiting factor in making use of this.
Once society collapses there's a few different strategies for survival
Hold up and hide: This works great...but depends on supplies, and there's only so much even a dedicated prepper can stock. At the extreme end it works until your water chip breaks. It also depends on no one finding you. If someone knows where your bunker is they can force you out with a shovel and some time, and if they're starving they will.
Roam and scavange: The main characters strategy. Stay in a small band, hit a place, get supplies, move on.
Build: The local town has passed the hold up phase and gone here. This is neccesary to keep everyone from running out of food, water, shelter, ammo and weapons. The problem is that you can only make a group so big without an industrial complex behind it, which gives you problems with..
The locusts. The most efficient short term survival is a group of murderous, mostly male psycos with no remorse rampaging through the countryside, killing everyone and taking everything that isn't nailed down. Highly efficient and mobile because they're not building anything, burdened with children, or stuck looking after the suck and weak they're just taking everything. Its a 100% fighting population.
The moral problems aside, they're the thing that keeps society from getting off the ground again, not the walkers. You need to build eventually , but why bother if its just an invitation to have things taken from you?
He's saying that individuals have rights that the majority can't simply take away by a 51% majority (at least in theory)
Dude, first off yanking pointy objects out of parts of your anatomy yourself is damned hard (this is not a hypothetical statement on my part). Secondly emergency medical medicine is entirely reliant on getting them to actual medical personnel in a hurry. Your chances of getting someone back with cpr are pretty slim. Your chances of getting them back with cpr if the nearest hospitals "don't serve their kind here" is lower than the odds of getting hit in the head by a meteor while winning the lottery. Most importantly, it doesn't matter how much medical "knowledge" you have, if you don't have a sterile environment, the right drugs, a few extra pair of well washed hands, the machine that goes ping, an IV bag, and most importantly the right drugs. You cannot just make these yourself and keep them on hand. Plastic tubes for example have an expiration date and if they go past that they'll snap, break, or leak plastic bits into places you probably don't want it.
Its possible I might be convinced that big government is worse than letting a racist biggot not serve people in a restaurant, but telling someone to suck it up and treat their own heart attack? I can't tell if you're pushing Poes law or reality is unrealistic. If you were presented as a 1950s villian i would demand my money back for shoddy writing.
And if its the one i'm thinking of, that fog was there PRECISELY so that a rogue had an excuse to sneak right up next to party members and gank them. Thats the kind of terrain advantage I['m talking about when it comes to NPC vs PC stealth tactics.
Seth Gipson wrote:
By ghoul been paralyzed
Cry elsewhere they advised
Won’t explode now like I should
Got Burried in debree
That's cool, but if my friends ask where you are Tell Aram Zey
My skin still feels the sting
That's cool, but if my friends ask where you are tell Aram Zey
You was caught in a mudslide
The torch isn't the problem.
Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal in dim light. Low-light vision is color vision. A spellcaster with low-light vision can read a scroll as long as even the tiniest candle flame is next to him as a source of light.
Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day.
Not in a D&D universe you can't. This humancentric approach is where so many things go wrong with the people trying to stealth. You're acting as if the ability to see in the dark is some rare, special ability when in fact its human(and halfling) night blindness that's the freaky exception.
To a human rogue that expanse of lawn between the castle* is a dark murky abyss great to hide in. For the elf, half elf, and every creature on golarion right down to the castles spit dog it looks like the lights are on in wriggly field.
* thats WHY there's a big open field around the castle: so your archers have cover and theirs don't.
Seth Gipson wrote:
You get smelledYou get blindsighted
you get blindsensed
You get detect magicked
You get tremorsensed
Two problems: 1) having a slightly open bag with a lightrock in it is a bad idea in a cave. If a rogue can see the light then you're going to stand out like a beacon in a cave. 2) The party telling you what they're doing is easy, a scout has to send information the other way.
Maybe we just accept that what we're being sold is a fantasy, something we didn't even realize we wanted and remember not to take it seriously or judge people for wanting what they want.
Note that i said "In a libertarian view" not in our current legal reality or 'any sane and reasonable balance between individual rights and public safety' And some libertarians will object to health codes and insist that businesses that make people sick be dealt with via people not eating there anymore.
Private property is not an absolute right... It never has been, save in the days of Kings, when all property in a kingdom reverted to him, and others held it at His Pleasure.
I'm trying to think of anything that would apply to ye olde 1800s wild west saloons (you know, beal america!!!!) and not coming up with anything.
As in that one is objectively worse than the other but people keep bringing out this line?
What's being missed by the libertarian argument here (and I -am- a libertarian) is that the property in question may be privately owned, but it is being held open to the public as a business.
Which in a libertarian view does not open you up to government regulation. Its still your private business that serves the public, not the public that gets to tell you how to run your private business.
If porn gets lambasted for setting unrealistic expectations that are ultimately harmful can we level the same charge at romantic comedies?
I think a girl trading sex for pizza is a heck of a lot more realistic than finding a man that is young but has had time to amass a large amount of wealth, gets paid a lot but still has all the time in the world to hit the gym AND devote to you, handles a high stress job but doesn't lose his hair, is caring and sensitive but still knows how to fight and yet is STILL not inexplicably unmarried but also attracted to a woman only because of how special they are, not because they're beautiful.
Heck, I think guardians of the galaxy might rate as more likely than that.....
For the light signarl what about dancing lights?
Dancing lights doesn't require concentration to make the lights move or act. What you can do is summon four little orbs and then move them into different shapes: a line in front of the party for alls good, a triangle for warning, or a bar in front of the party for stop, or a square for "HEEEEEEEELP!" It apparently doesn't even take an action to do this.
A Medium-Sized Animated Object wrote:
BNW, what's your beef, man? Like, you're attacking different aspects of this thing, but what's your thesis?
That when trying to stealth, there are 87 different things that can go wrong so one of them is very likely to. I'm not saying to abandon the tactic if you really have your heart set on it, but you have to get all your ducks in a row AND even then adjust expectations for this tactic to work. Get invisibility, its the only way it works.
Get invisibility its the only way it works. and get invisibility its the only way it works.
The OP walked right into one of the most egregious problems 'I'm a human and I want to go scout in the dark!'.
A lot of your arguments are good, but some of them are predicated on practices and interpretations that are inconsistent with how many DMs run encounters involving bad guys who are sneaky or invisible
But are they inconsistent with how many DMs will run encounters with PLAYERS that are sneaky or invisible? I don't like the disparity there. As a result i get fewer surprise rounds on the PCs than any DM I've played with
and/or just seem post-hoc.
This makes me think you've got some underlying criticism more fundamental than any of your disparate points (and that underlying criticism is probably valid and worth knowing, if your history is any indication).
-The stealth rules are kinda borked.
-The Borkedness of the stealth rules often get handwaived by special circumstances, set ups, and terrain modifiers for NPCs in ways that are not going to happen for the PCs. PCs have to deal with the terrain as they find it. NPCs will have the exact terrain they need to ambush you provided by the scenario.
-Stealth rules rely on EXACTLY how the DM does it. Which is a problem when you change DMs like in organized play.
Would you prefer it if they re-wrote the stealth and perception skills to make scouting and ambush work the way so many players seem to want it to work?
Not that far. Some players want it to be improved invisibility with a skill check (that they'll never miss)
Lord Snow wrote:
There's a vast difference between judging someone for what they are and judging them for what they do.